(Original post by tieyourmotherdown)
To be honest, as far as I'm aware gay rights in the UK are more or less equal to those of heterosexual people. I don't feel I'm being denied any rights living in the UK*. Maybe if I were in some US states (i.e where there are no anti-discrimination laws and no civil partnerships/same-sex marriage) I would be denied some rights, but as far as I'm concerned I've got no civil rights issues living in the UK.

*(I know there is the whole same-sex marriage vs. civil partnership debate going on, but ultimately civil partnerships give me exactly the same legal rights as marriage, and whilst I do think that both systems should be open to hetero and homosexual couples, I really don't think it's a rights issue but more of a symbolic one)

Some areas are more progressive than others and do not fall under my blanket statement. This I admit.
Can you be married and do you have access to your spouses pension plan, medical plan etc?

(Original post by gladders)
I think the point though is that in the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king. We may well be at 30%, but Iran is far, far behind us.

While people individually may be bigoted against homosexuals, unlike Iran, it's not a criminal act and not persecuted by the State. The national aspiration is a country where homosexuals are accepted and their sexuality makes no impact whatsoever on their life ambitions. That's leaps and bounds different from Iran...so yes, I think we do have the right to lecture Iran.

You are right--------to a point.
As far as I know and I am not sure of the Netherlands, all governments have held back full equality from their Gay populations.

I am disheartened somewhat by those who say--we are not as bad as some but will not add that they could do more. They sound like they will only respond to demands instead of being pro active in granting equality to their citizens.

If we are to measure our morals by the minimum we can do then I find that attitude quite ugly.

(Original post by The Cornerstone)
Most of this is about the US, which have a rather 'strong' opinion about homosexuals.

Although, even though the government does not punish homosexuality, it seems the population does so more subtly (ie bullying, name calling etc...) so you do have a point.

I thank you.

The Governments of the West do not outwardly punish gays I agree but it is punishment to hold back benefits that other heterosexual couples enjoy.
marriage, pensions, health plans etc. You might call it indirect taxation or punishment from omission.

Further, I see harassement of Gays as a sub class of society as a hate crime. I hope you agree that churches and religions are promoting hate for abominations and sinners who are not sinning by their actions.

How many of us would actually what they do if the religions were not denigrating and discriminating against them? Far fewer I would think.

The Governments of the West do not outwardly punish gays I agree but it is punishment to hold back benefits that other heterosexual couples enjoy.
marriage, pensions, health plans etc. You might call it indirect taxation or punishment from omission.

Further, I see harassement of Gays as a sub class of society as a hate crime. I hope you agree that churches and religions are promoting hate for abominations and sinners who are not sinning by their actions.

How many of us would actually what they do if the religions were not denigrating and discriminating against them? Far fewer I would think.

Churches are perpetuating that hate.

Regards
DL

you cannot expect the churches to promote homosexuality as it is against their beliefs. I don't think they hate the homosexuals themselves, rather the act of sodomy.

We need to uphold moral and natural law, and homosexuals are not condoned anywhere in the bible - in fact, we are backward compared to Iran, for refusing to address social problems and allowing soceity to descend into an atheist abyss.

It always amuses me when you think you know more about Iran than me. You'll be back for another sound drubbing in a few days, no doubt

Keep being a naive ****, ****. "Yeah let's have a revolution!! Down with the establishment!! Down with the Nazi Islamic Rapist Regime!!" - You sound more pathetic than the kids who were 'occupying' The Senate House in Cambridge. (And has it never occurred to you that it may be somewhat insensitive to equate (with an = sign) a modern day legitimate government as identical to the NSDAP, who committed systematic genocide on a grand scale?

Next point. I don't claim to know more about Iran than you. I never have, because I don't know how much you know about Iran. I don't see why you must always bring it up. And that does not interest me either (obviously interests you enough to try and demean my knowledge as I "cannot even speak the language hahahahaha"). But what we both know about Iran is where our views clash, and that is what I contend every time. Why you try and make this a battle about who knows more about Iran or who has spent more time in Iran or who is ethnically closer to Iran is irrelevant. You can have those paper victories bro, I raise no contest.

But what you have done is linked me to a mass of information, including 'Dr. Homa Darabi's Foundation' (great source to convince others - try PETA for vegetarianism next time) without any reference as to how that corroborates your lie of women being held to be half the worth of men in Iran.

"Mr Law Student" will be happy to read any legal 'facts', and has in fact spent some time doing so as I wanted to check out the links before commenting. And, as I suspected, I am not convinced.

P.S. We never get anywhere so if you want to save your time, don't bother replying.

One would hope that you don't resort to such language in class or whilst mooting. Terribly bad form old chap

Yeah let's have a revolution!! Down with the establishment!! Down with the Nazi Islamic Rapist Regime!!" - You sound more pathetic than the kids who were 'occupying' The Senate House in Cambridge. (And has it never occurred to you that it may be somewhat insensitive to equate (with an = sign) a modern day legitimate government as identical to the NSDAP, who committed systematic genocide on a grand scale?

Do you base the legitimacy of government on whether it can coerce it's way into hegemonic domination, or rather whether or not it derives legitimacy directly from the people instead of "the representative of the Prophet Mohammad"...?

If the former, your ideas belong to the era of pre-Enlightenment dinosaurs and one wonders why on earth you've elected to study law given that you haven't got the first clue about "the rule of...".

Next point. I don't claim to know more about Iran than you. I never have, because I don't know how much you know about Iran. I don't see why you must always bring it up. And that does not interest me either (obviously interests you enough to try and demean my knowledge as I "cannot even speak the language hahahahaha"). But what we both know about Iran is where our views clash, and that is what I contend every time. Why you try and make this a battle about who knows more about Iran or who has spent more time in Iran or who is ethnically closer to Iran is irrelevant. You can have those paper victories bro, I raise no contest.

Whereas your contentions are based on a combination of trolling and insults...and mine are based in facts which can easily be looked up. End o' story.

But what you have done is linked me to a mass of information, including 'Dr. Homa Darabi's Foundation' (great source to convince others - try PETA for vegetarianism next time) without any reference as to how that corroborates your lie of women being held to be half the worth of men in Iran.

It was a direct quote from the Islamic Republic's Penal Code. Did you even read it?

"Mr Law Student" will be happy to read any legal 'facts', and has in fact spent some time doing so as I wanted to check out the links before commenting. And, as I suspected, I am not convinced.

"In the courts they are worth half the value of men"

How much more clearly do you want it to be spelt out?

P.S. We never get anywhere so if you want to save your time, don't bother replying.

Don't quote me in the future then. You use this precise line everytime I present you with facts that show how nonsensical your assertions are

One would hope that you don't resort to such language in class or whilst mooting. Terribly bad form old chap

Why are you obsessed about me being a law student or doing mooting? I told you last time to call me an idiot and not a law student but you're back at it again. Though I did come third out of 51 so I guess I'm doing something right ey.

Do you base the legitimacy of government on whether it can coerce it's way into hegemonic domination, or rather whether or not it derives legitimacy directly from the people instead of "the representative of the Prophet Mohammad"...?

Neither.

If the former, your ideas belong to the era of pre-Enlightenment dinosaurs and one wonders why on earth you've elected to study law given that you haven't got the first clue about "the rule of...".

Good thing I don't then. Even so, your assertion is again not so simply true but I won't go down that (even more pointless) path...

Whereas your contentions are based on a combination of trolling and insults...and mine are based in facts which can easily be looked up. End o' story.

Rather yours are based on good old bull**** and calling others trolls and fascists. I could similarly link you to a load of crap, but you could just Google it too. Same diff.

CBA now, and as for your quotation - read what is before and after it, and then read what you wrote about a woman's worth in Iran. Doesn't quite add up.

(Original post by DJkG.1)
Good thing I don't then. Even so, your assertion is again not so simply true but I won't go down that (even more pointless) path...

This is DEBATE & DISCUSSION, not Rant & Rave. If you feel that my "assertion" is not "so simply true", then instead of pouting and moaning, why don't you prove that the Islamic Republic's Penal Code, doesn't contain such an article?

In short, if you think debate and discussion is a "pointless path", why on Earth are you posting in this forum?

(Original post by Democracy)
This is DEBATE & DISCUSSION, not Rant & Rave. If you feel that my "assertion" is not "so simply true", then instead of pouting and moaning, why don't you prove that the Islamic Republic's Penal Code, doesn't contain such an article?

In short, if you think debate and discussion is a "pointless path", why on Earth are you posting in this forum?

And you wonder why I think you're trolling...

Assertion about the rule of law and basing "the legitimacy of government on whether it can coerce it's way into hegemonic domination".

The Governments of the West do not outwardly punish gays I agree but it is punishment to hold back benefits that other heterosexual couples enjoy.
marriage, pensions, health plans etc. You might call it indirect taxation or punishment from omission.

Further, I see harassement of Gays as a sub class of society as a hate crime. I hope you agree that churches and religions are promoting hate for abominations and sinners who are not sinning by their actions.

How many of us would actually what they do if the religions were not denigrating and discriminating against them? Far fewer I would think.

Anti-gay discrimination is a crime here in the UK, and yet this guy gets compensation for doing it? Him saying homosexuality is a sin on the streets is as good as him inciting hatred by saying 'Homosexuals are all going to hell' on the streets.

It is evident that being a Christian state and having equal rights amongst all is conflicting and sitting on the bench for both is making it hard to identify what is right and what is wrong in this country. You have either got to commit to all equal rights completely or don't bother at all, otherwise there is no point in doing so.

(Original post by sandys1000)
I suppose it is moral, but I don't think it requires a philiosophical discussion to say that the attitude in Iran is contemptible.

Their Gays are discriminated against by the state and so are the Gays of the West. It is the degree that we do not like. We should clean up our act before asking them to clean up theirs. We still have about a third of our own to convert to civilization before we try to convert others.

(Original post by Transubstantiation)
We need to uphold moral and natural law, and homosexuals are not condoned anywhere in the bible - in fact, we are backward compared to Iran, for refusing to address social problems and allowing soceity to descend into an atheist abyss.

Are Gays somehow not natural?
Are their parents somehow un-natural?

If God is real then this shows why he allows Gays.
Suck it up fool. God is said to create all things for his pleasure including Gays.
learn your Bible.